URMILA AGRO FARM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to release the genuine dues payable to the petitioners by the respondents which has been deducted/withdrawn arbitrarily, unreasonably, capriciously behind the back of the petitioners without any notice and/or information to the petitioners at the behest of the Respondent No.3 to deprive the petitioners' legitimate dues, non -payment of which is seriously jeopardized them.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners an order for supply of 87 Bee -keeping Sets was given to the petitioners after their offer was found to be lowest Out of 87 Bee -keeping sets, 32 sets were supplied by the petitioners, for which they received the payment as per the contract The dispute arose only with regard to the supply of remaining 55 Bee -keeping sets which according to the respondents were of substandard, and therefore, there were some dispute with regard to the payment of the price of said 55 Bee -keeping sets. According to the petitioners, the respondents arbitrarily reduced the contract price and deducted the amount causing serious financial loss to the petitioners and the amount of second bill and third bill submitted by the petitioners were not paid to them. Though a notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C. was given to the respondents, but when no action was taken then this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) THEREFORE , from the averments made in the aforesaid two paragraphs of the counter affidavit, it appears that the main stand of the respondents are that to resolve the dispute with regard to the payment of 55 Bee -keeping sets, a meeting was held under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, which was attended by the petitioners also and in the said meeting it was decided to revise the price of the Bee -keeping sets @ Rs.8,965/each of 3 sets and pursuant thereto payment was made to the petitioner, which the petitioners accepted on 23.3.2001 without any objection. These facts stated in the paragraph nos. 11 and 12 of the counter affidavit have not been disputed by the petitioners in their rejoinder to the counter affidavit.